无成见的直观与有成见的理解——梵·高画作《鞋》的阐释之辩

Non-Preconceived Intuition vs. Preconceived Understanding:The Interpretations around Vincent Van Gogh's Painting A Pair of Shoes

海德格尔与夏皮罗就梵·高的画作《鞋》所进行的争论是现代艺术史上的一桩著名公案。前者主张对作品进行无成见的直观,后者则采取有成见的理解方法,两种方法分别源自现象学和解释学。不同的方法导致不同的结果,海德格尔之误在于没有严格实行现象学还原,以致把不合理的成见带入了作品;夏皮罗的成功则在于把现象学方法和解释学方法合理地统一起来,在对作品进行精细直观的基础上,合理地发挥了成见的作用。这场争论启示我们,对于艺术作品意义的理解应该:一是对作品进行无成见的直观,以确保作品的源初显现;二是有成见的理解,让合理的成见充分发挥其作用。只有这两种方法的综合运用,才能使作品的意义得到合理的阐释。

Heidegger and Shapiro's controversy over Vincent Van Gogh's painting A Pair of Shoes is a famous case in modern art history.The former insists on non-preconceived intuition when interpreting the work,while the later takes a preconceived approach.The two methods are derived from phenomenology and hermeneutics respectively,thus leading to different results.Heidegger fails to make a strict phenomenological reduction,so that unreasonable preconception is brought to the interpretation of the work.Shapiro successfully combines phenomenological and hermeneutic methods,on the basis of intuitive observation,making preconception play its role.This controversy indicates that,in understanding the meaning of an artwork,one should both make observation with non-preconceived intuition to ensure its original appearance,and let reasonable preconception play its role.